预期保守治疗与剖宫产子宫切除术对已知或疑似胎盘增生谱:成本-效果分析

IF 4.3 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2024-12-05 DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.18025
Jessica C. Morgan, Erika N. Hripko, Brett D. Einerson, Ashish Premkumar
{"title":"预期保守治疗与剖宫产子宫切除术对已知或疑似胎盘增生谱:成本-效果分析","authors":"Jessica C. Morgan,&nbsp;Erika N. Hripko,&nbsp;Brett D. Einerson,&nbsp;Ashish Premkumar","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.18025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>We examined the cost-effectiveness of conservative management (CM) compared to planned caesarean hysterectomy (CH) for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>A cost-effectiveness analysis in a theoretical cohort of patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting</h3>\n \n <p>A decision analytic model.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Population</h3>\n \n <p>A theoretical cohort of 1000 pregnant patients with PAS greater than 20 weeks gestation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>In base case analysis, we assumed that between 20% and 40% of individuals would be eligible for CM. Model inputs were derived from the literature. Analysis was conducted from a healthcare system perspective with a 1 year analytic horizon. Outcomes included hysterectomy, surgical site infection (SSI), length of hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) defined cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\n \n <p>The cost gained per life year and per QALY.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>For base case estimates, CM was the cost-saving strategy with an ICER of $9330.51 USD. Compared to CH, CM resulted in 905 fewer hysterectomies, 80 fewer instances of SSI and five fewer deaths. CM resulted in 149 more admissions with length of stay &gt; 5 days and 25 more ICU admissions. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, CM was the cost-effective strategy in 71% of runs and the dominant strategy in 42% of runs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>CM was the cost-effective strategy for the management of PAS in greater than 70% of iterations of our model. Modelling demonstrated significant uncertainty in the comparative effectiveness of the two strategies, highlighting the need for prospective research evaluating the effectiveness of CM.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 8","pages":"1096-1103"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.18025","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intended Conservative Management Versus Caesarean Hysterectomy for Known or Suspected Placenta Accreta Spectrum: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Jessica C. Morgan,&nbsp;Erika N. Hripko,&nbsp;Brett D. Einerson,&nbsp;Ashish Premkumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1471-0528.18025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>We examined the cost-effectiveness of conservative management (CM) compared to planned caesarean hysterectomy (CH) for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>A cost-effectiveness analysis in a theoretical cohort of patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Setting</h3>\\n \\n <p>A decision analytic model.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Population</h3>\\n \\n <p>A theoretical cohort of 1000 pregnant patients with PAS greater than 20 weeks gestation.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>In base case analysis, we assumed that between 20% and 40% of individuals would be eligible for CM. Model inputs were derived from the literature. Analysis was conducted from a healthcare system perspective with a 1 year analytic horizon. Outcomes included hysterectomy, surgical site infection (SSI), length of hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) defined cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\\n \\n <p>The cost gained per life year and per QALY.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>For base case estimates, CM was the cost-saving strategy with an ICER of $9330.51 USD. Compared to CH, CM resulted in 905 fewer hysterectomies, 80 fewer instances of SSI and five fewer deaths. CM resulted in 149 more admissions with length of stay &gt; 5 days and 25 more ICU admissions. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, CM was the cost-effective strategy in 71% of runs and the dominant strategy in 42% of runs.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>CM was the cost-effective strategy for the management of PAS in greater than 70% of iterations of our model. Modelling demonstrated significant uncertainty in the comparative effectiveness of the two strategies, highlighting the need for prospective research evaluating the effectiveness of CM.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"volume\":\"132 8\",\"pages\":\"1096-1103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1471-0528.18025\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.18025\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.18025","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们比较了保守治疗(CM)与计划剖宫产子宫切除术(CH)治疗增生性胎盘(PAS)的成本-效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intended Conservative Management Versus Caesarean Hysterectomy for Known or Suspected Placenta Accreta Spectrum: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Objective

We examined the cost-effectiveness of conservative management (CM) compared to planned caesarean hysterectomy (CH) for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS).

Design

A cost-effectiveness analysis in a theoretical cohort of patients.

Setting

A decision analytic model.

Population

A theoretical cohort of 1000 pregnant patients with PAS greater than 20 weeks gestation.

Methods

In base case analysis, we assumed that between 20% and 40% of individuals would be eligible for CM. Model inputs were derived from the literature. Analysis was conducted from a healthcare system perspective with a 1 year analytic horizon. Outcomes included hysterectomy, surgical site infection (SSI), length of hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and death. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) defined cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Main Outcome Measures

The cost gained per life year and per QALY.

Results

For base case estimates, CM was the cost-saving strategy with an ICER of $9330.51 USD. Compared to CH, CM resulted in 905 fewer hysterectomies, 80 fewer instances of SSI and five fewer deaths. CM resulted in 149 more admissions with length of stay > 5 days and 25 more ICU admissions. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, CM was the cost-effective strategy in 71% of runs and the dominant strategy in 42% of runs.

Conclusions

CM was the cost-effective strategy for the management of PAS in greater than 70% of iterations of our model. Modelling demonstrated significant uncertainty in the comparative effectiveness of the two strategies, highlighting the need for prospective research evaluating the effectiveness of CM.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
5.20%
发文量
345
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BJOG is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. Its aim is to publish the highest quality medical research in women''s health, worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Acute symptoms of depression and traumatic stress in men and women who terminate pregnancy after the detection of fetal anomaly: A prospective observational study Effect of Targeted Aspirin Administration Based on First Trimester Combined Screening for Preeclampsia on Preterm Birth: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis Beyond Pain—Associations Between Menstrual Symptoms, Work Productivity and Quality of Life: A Large-Scale Web-Based Cross-Sectional Study Medical Mistrust and the Patient Experience: A National Survey on What Shapes Engagement in OB/GYN Care
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1